Fornits
General Interest => Open Free for All => Topic started by: Anonymous on February 03, 2006, 12:32:00 PM
-
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/2 ... ans02.html (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/257830_means02.html)
It would've been different with Tweedledum
Thursday, February 2, 2006
By MARIANNE MEANS
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
WASHINGTON -- Funny how the political perspective in 2000 seems goofy in retrospect. Remember how maverick presidential candidate Ralph Nader ran around the country in 2000 calling George W. Bush and Al Gore Tweedledee and Tweedledum, claiming there was no philosophical or political difference between them?
It wouldn't matter which one was elected, Nader said. Nader got dumped but he caused Gore considerable grief. So far, Nader hasn't had an Oprah moment, conceding how totally wrong he was. Nobody much cares about him these days, although he has a Web site begging for $100 contributions to get his autograph. His pitiful performance in a subsequent obscure 2004 race finally did him in for good. By now, however, we all know the truth. Nader lied. He was James Frey-delusional. But suppose the 2000 race had really been resolved the other way?
The National Journal has just published an exhaustive analysis of how different Washington would be if voters this fall give Democrats control of the House or Senate, ending five years of conservative one-party government. President Bush's aggressive right-wing agenda has polarized the country, which remains almost evenly divided politically. And his freedom from GOP oversight has proved disastrous to congressional credibility.
A recent House study reported that craven congressional oversight committees have not issued a single subpoena to the Bush White House, although they sent subpoenas to President Clinton for everything from the cost of cleaning the linens to the cookie count at receptions. The Journal pulls no punches. If voters kick out lots of GOP rascals to substitute Democratic rascals, the magazine figures it could "turn Washington upside down." It would mean, for starters, that the White House would finally be subjected to tough investigations similar to those endured by Clinton, which Bush has, thus far, been spared by his groveling party.
It would mean no more lavish tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations. It would mean no more mean-spirited attacks on social programs that help people in need, and no more imperious moralizing on family decisions. It would mean a serious examination of the administration's bungled handling of Hurricane Katrina and the Iraq war. It would provoke a genuine debate over how to fix the incompetence they exposed. Maybe changes in policy would take place.
Wow! It might even mean Congress would consider a resolution censuring the president for misleading us into an unnecessary war. It is impossible to imagine Gore and a Democratic congressional majority trying to privatize Social Security, reject minimum-wage increases, cut student loans and benefits to the low-income elderly, push a new unintelligible prescription drug reform that panders to the drug and insurance companies, protect polluting industries from environmental regulations and ignore consumer protection laws.
Bush and his GOP pals have done all those things and are still doing them, when they are not fending off indictments for corruption and charges of selling out the public interest to lobbyists. Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine., put the difference well, from his partisan perspective. "Their (the GOP) governing philosophy has been to pass the most extreme possible legislation, which reflects a radical individualism. Our values deal principally with community." If Democrats take control in either chamber, the president and his party would have to consult with the opposition. That could result in contentious public debate over a variety of issues that are not currently very energetically aired -- nominations, the budget, the legislative agenda, foreign policy.
The National Journal points out that there are competing precedents for divided government in the final two years of a president's second term. Despite the Iran-Contra scandal, an ever-smiling Ronald Reagan managed to distance himself from his own policies between 1987 and 1989, pleading ignorance.
In his own lame duck phase in 1999, Clinton faced a GOP-dominated Senate trial on the two impeachment counts against him passed by the GOP-run House the previous year for his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky. The Senate felt the punishment too harsh and so did the public, but the continuing partisan hostility and the coming 2000 election dogged everything. Little of importance got done. The whole period was a political waste.
So which will it be this time? It's a crapshoot. Remember that Clinton, of the so-called big-spending party, left us with a plump budget surplus. Bush, of the so-called limited government party, has given us a huge and increasing deficit. How's that for a practical difference?
Marianne Means is a Washington, D.C., columnist with Hearst Newspapers. Copyright 2006 Hearst Newspapers. She can be reached at 202-263-6400 or means@hearstdc.com.
© 1998-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
-
Different, yeah. Better? I'm not so sure. At least w/ these swaggaring, obvious idiots on stage, people know we're in trouble and seem inclined to start doing something about it.
It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
--Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat
-
Bush's legacy: busting the myth that conservatives spend less and shrink the government. Reagan seems to have gotten away with this lie, but Bush sure isn't. He very well could set back the conservative movement decades with his reckless spending, surveilance and nation building. All things usually blamed on Democrats.
Whining that it would have been beter under Gore is stupid. That's history -- maybe if he fought as dirty as Bush/Cheney they would of pulled it through. He lost his chance, and for anyone to predict 'what might have happened' seems kind of silly to me. Better to focus on the next election, IMO. Especially congressional 2006 elections... this could be a really huge upset if Dem's take over. They could start impeachment proceedings, etc. What fun!